5. Clause 1 would confer a power on a police officer
of the rank of superintendent or above to issue a closure notice
in respect of premises thought to be used in connection with dealing
in or using Class A controlled drugs. After serving the notice,
the police would have to apply to a magistrates' court for a closure
order in respect of all or part of the premises. The court would
be permitted by clause 2 to make an order closing the premises
to all persons for a period of up to three months. The order could
be extended, but could not remain in force for more than six months
in total.[4] The court
would be allowed to make the order only if satisfied that the
premises have been used 'in connection with' the unlawful use
or supply of a Class A controlled drug, and that the use of the
premises is associated with disorder or serious nuisance to members
of the public, and that the making of the order is necessary to
prevent the occurrence of such disorder or serious nuisance for
the specified period.[5]
If an order is made, it would be an offence for anyone (including
the owner or occupier) to enter or remain on the premises in breach
of the order.[6]

6. As the Government accepts,[7]
this engages the right to respect for private life and the home
(ECHR Article 8), and the right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions
(Protocol No. 1, Article 1). The Government's view is that the
measures are justifiable, being for the prevention of disorder
and crime and the protection of the rights and freedoms of other
people in the neighbourhood. The measures are said to serve a
pressing social need because they close a gap in the current law
relating to such properties and the serious nuisance and disorder
which results. There are procedural safeguards to secure proportionality.
In relation to Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1/1), the Government
says that the measures constitute a control of rights rather than
a deprivation of property rights, and strikes a fair balance.
The Government points out that, although there is in its view
no need to provide compensation to those adversely affected, the
Bill makes provision for compensation to be awarded by a court
in appropriate cases.[8]

7. We agree with this assessment. There are arrangements
for an inter partes hearing before an order is made, for
people to be allowed access to the premises in accordance with
the order, for applications for the order to be discharged, and
for appeals.[9] The order
would be time-limited. In addition, a court would have to draft
the order in such a way as to protect the Convention right to
respect for the home of any occupier of the premises, and would
need to bear in mind that it would often be disproportionate to
deprive children and innocent co-habitants of their home on account
of activities for which they had no responsibility. That being
so, we consider that clause
1 would not give rise to any significant risk of incompatibility
with Convention rights.

8. On the other hand, closure of premises might lead
to innocent residents in a house, including children, being deprived
of their homes, at least for a period, because of the conduct
of other members of their family or other co-habitants. We were
concerned that this could lead to a breach of the right to an
adequate standard of living, including accommodation adequate
for their needs, under Article 11 of the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). This is not
one of the Convention rights made part of national law in the
United Kingdom by the Human Rights Act 1998, but it nevertheless
binds the United Kingdom in international law. We therefore asked
the Home Secretary what protection would be available for the
rights under ICESCR Article 11 of innocent parties, including
children, who are excluded from their homes as a result of other
peoples misconduct.

9. The Government's reply points to two kinds of
safeguards: first, procedural protections in relation to the making
of the closure order; secondly, measures available to help people
to find alternative accommodation. The procedural protections
would include a right to make representations to the court considering
making a closure order. The measures to help people without accommodation
include: a right to free advice on housing matters under the Housing
Acts; a right to be rehoused by the local housing authority if
the person has a priority need and has not become homeless intentionally;
and, in relation to children, the duty of the local social services
authority to provide assistance, including in some cases help
with accommodation, money, food and clothing.

10. In the light of this, we
have reached the conclusion that there would be adequate measures
available to prevent innocent people, including children, from
having their rights under ICESCR Article 11 violated by a closure
order made under Part 1 of the Bill.